![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheThis entry on Faris QC's blog (I found him when The Age mentioned his defence of torture) talks about Gerard Henderson having been 'sacked' from The Age. This is apparantly a travesty. Why? well, mainly it seems because he has been replaced by people with whom he (and Faris) disagrees. He is still published by the SMH, though, and he he still has his Think Tank job, so it is unlikely that he will starve.
Of course, The Age is wrong for not publishing Henderson. I was impressed (for the wrong reasons) by what Faris chose to highlight out of all of what Henderson had to say on the matter:
Ok. So why does Faris (and Henderson) have a problem with this? Has the Herald-Sun ceased to exist? The Australian? Channels Seven, Nine and Ten? The Bulletin?
Is the problem that 'The Left' now has an unrepresentatively large voice, now that one commentator is no longer being published in one newspaper in one state? Then why is there no complaint about South Australia, where the only local paper is like the Herald-Sun, only more so?
The more I wonder about their disgust over this, the more it looks like their problem is that 'The Left' has any voice at all. If The Age is to be allowed to exist, why can't it be more like its more-to-the-right-wing big sister in Sydney?
Oooh, ooh, is it because The Age doesn't actually represent anyone? Anyone real? That is, only latté sipping, chardonnay quaffing, effete liberal (small-l), ivory tower, idealistic, out of touch lefties read it, and it says nothing to the 'average Australian'?
Gee. How does it stay in business, with so few readers? Or could it be that there are more effete latté lefties out there than they feel comfortable admitting? People buy The Age for a reason. There is not the excuse used for the ABC that they are held down and forced to read it. Could it be that, again, the problem is that people with whom they disagree are permitted to have a voice?
What they are saying, once you strip away their protestations about free speech, is that there is too much free speech, and that the wrong people have it.
Of course, The Age is wrong for not publishing Henderson. I was impressed (for the wrong reasons) by what Faris chose to highlight out of all of what Henderson had to say on the matter:
...The Age is the most left-wing newspaper in Australia...That's it. Of all the things to take issue with, it is that The Age is left wing.
Ok. So why does Faris (and Henderson) have a problem with this? Has the Herald-Sun ceased to exist? The Australian? Channels Seven, Nine and Ten? The Bulletin?
Is the problem that 'The Left' now has an unrepresentatively large voice, now that one commentator is no longer being published in one newspaper in one state? Then why is there no complaint about South Australia, where the only local paper is like the Herald-Sun, only more so?
The more I wonder about their disgust over this, the more it looks like their problem is that 'The Left' has any voice at all. If The Age is to be allowed to exist, why can't it be more like its more-to-the-right-wing big sister in Sydney?
Oooh, ooh, is it because The Age doesn't actually represent anyone? Anyone real? That is, only latté sipping, chardonnay quaffing, effete liberal (small-l), ivory tower, idealistic, out of touch lefties read it, and it says nothing to the 'average Australian'?
Gee. How does it stay in business, with so few readers? Or could it be that there are more effete latté lefties out there than they feel comfortable admitting? People buy The Age for a reason. There is not the excuse used for the ABC that they are held down and forced to read it. Could it be that, again, the problem is that people with whom they disagree are permitted to have a voice?
What they are saying, once you strip away their protestations about free speech, is that there is too much free speech, and that the wrong people have it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-11 11:35 pm (UTC)When I was following IR issues, it was very conspicuous that the AFR coverage would be a day later, but much much more informative. And it is quite remarkable how many Fairfax journalists despise The Age, precisely on the above grounds
And your comments about FoxNews are much like Faris' comments on The Age only more so. FoxNews is right wing. So?
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-12 02:20 am (UTC)There is putative bias, and there is raison d'être.
The Age does attack the Labor government, even if it isn't always acrimonious enough for your liking. There was even a large investigative report published in yesterday's (Saturday's) edition, over several pages.
FoxNews regards any evidence of US misdeeds or atrocities as mere trivial abberations (even after the nth repetition), and questioning of the neo-con agenda as treasonous (and, yes, they do use that word).
FoxNews puts me far more in mind of classical Pravda than The Age ever has. (The new Pravda is more or less the Weekly World News in Russion.) The same (dis)regard for objective truth, the same attitude towards dissent to power, the same vitriol towards The Enemy (whether it be Eastasia or Eurasia this week). The main difference is that Pravda never had Bill Reilly or Anne Coulter.
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-12 08:26 pm (UTC)The Age usually attacks Labor governments for not being left-wing/progressivist enough (the level of acrimony is not the issue). And it is in the news business, so it can hardly avoid genuine stories. Even there, it's narrowness can get in the way -- I remember a former prominent Age journalist telling me that the problem with their coverage of issues under Kennett was that readers were left working out whether the latest attack was justanotherAgeattack or whether there was substance to it this time. Similarly, potential stories go begging because they don't "fit in" with the worldview.
When I was in Canberra, people would read the Oz, the AFR and the SMH. At best, we would glance through The Age because it was like the SMH only worse (more predictable, less substantive content).
As for FoxNews, it seems fairly clear to me that the rhetoric of each side in the US feeds off the other -- the right yells about treason, etc; the left yells about stupidity, etc; both yell about tyranny-being-just-around-the-corner. It is all way overdone, though it is natural to notice more the stuff that insults oneself than the stuff that insults other folk.